You are here

KY: Federal judge strikes internet restrictions, online identifiers

By Bruce Schreiner . . . LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky went too far in restricting internet access for registered sex offenders, violating free-speech rights by clamping down on their use of social media, a federal judge ruled Friday.

In striking down the restrictions, U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove said [the] state law could keep sex offenders from participating in “basic online activities.” As an example, he said it would restrict them from accessing a newspaper website because of its public comments section.

The judge wrote that one of the Kentucky laws under review “burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the commonwealth’s legitimate interests in protecting children from sexual abuse solicited via the internet.”

His ruling concluded that registered sex offenders have a constitutional right to use Facebook, Twitter and other social media. He ruled in a lawsuit filed by a Lexington man who registered as a sex offender due to his conviction for possessing child pornography.

Scott White, an attorney representing the man, identified in the ruling as John Doe, called it an important case that “in no way puts children or vulnerable people at risk.”

“Kentuckians who find themselves on the sex offender registry will now be able to more mainstream their lives, which helps in their rehabilitation, helps them find to find a job,” he said.

The state Justice Cabinet said attorneys are reviewing the decision.

Van Tatenhove cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year that struck down a similar North Carolina law barring convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites.

Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear is hoping state lawmakers take up the issue next year. After the high court’s ruling in the North Carolina case, he said, he presented draft legislation to lawmakers that he predicted could pass constitutional muster.

“Today, more than ever, we must work together to safeguard Kentucky’s children from sexual predators when they visit social networking websites,” Beshear said in a statement Friday.

In the Kentucky case, Van Tatenhove was asked to rule on two state laws. One prohibited sex offenders from using social networking websites or instant messaging or chat rooms that could be accessible to children. The other required sex offenders to update their probation or parole officers on all of their email addresses, instant messaging names and other online identities.

The Lexington man who sued claimed the law violated his free-speech rights.

The law’s defenders argued that it applies only to websites that minors are truly likely to frequent and use for communications. Van Tatenhove said the statute “fails to make that clear.”

“Rather than prohibiting a certain type of conduct that is narrowly tailored to prevent child abuse, the statute prevents Mr. Doe and others similarly situated from accessing what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge,” the judge wrote.

He also found flaws in the law requiring sex offenders to keep their probation and parole officers updated on all of their online identities.

“It may be true that the General Assembly meant the law to apply only to a sex offender’s new Facebook profile, but the law as written might as well apply to usernames created to engage in online dialogue over products of news stories,” he wrote.

Source: The Associated Press via The Seattle Times.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

This topic contains 51 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Tim L 11 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #25012 Reply


    So when is someone going to let facebook know that we have a fundamental right to access their website?

    • #25018 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall

      This question has yet to be presented and it’s unclear how it would be resolved. It’s not as slam-dunk as it may appear to be. For example, nobody has a “fundamental right” to walk into a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has the right to refuse service to anyone. And even with public utilities, there is not really any such thing as a “fundamental right” (try not paying the bill and see what happens). We all agree that registered citizens should be allowed to use Facebook. But there is no clear, legal path in forcing Facebook to change its policy.

      • #25025 Reply

        Walmart cannot deny service to people based on; age, gender, race, religion, or disability, because it is against the law to single out a class of people and ban them. I realize registrants are not a protected class, but that is what is happening here, we are being singled out of all the other criminal types and being banned. It is really flirting with the line of discrimination, if it hasn’t outright crossed it. If Facebook can do that, how long will it be before Walmart drafts a similar policy?

        • #25026 Reply


          It’s not that we are or should be a protected class, it’s that our constitutional rights especially freedom of speech and expression are being squelched, and that is protected.

        • #25034 Reply

          That is probably the best argument to make, but the 1st Amendment applies to the government and what they can or cannot do to a citizen. That is why SCOTUS ruled in our favor on Packingham, but Facebook can still ban us. Facebook is not the government.

        • #25087 Reply


          True. Facebook is NOT the government. There’s a big difference between one entity denying us the use of their services, but it is a different ballgame altogether when any level of government acts to arbitrarily deny someone their First Amendment right to free speech.

          Another argument in our favor: When it comes to “listening” and “being heard in the cyberspace town square”, there is NO suitable alternative for the Internet. It is well-established law that the government cannot suppress all free speech as a means of suppressing illegal speech.

      • #25022 Reply

        Jonathon Merritt

        Maybe you can tell me how the Electric company can boycott the address of someone who always pays their bills because that person is on a registry.

        • #25047 Reply
          Robin Vander Wall
          Robin Vander Wall

          Never heard of that happening before. What state are you in? Have you reported this to the state’s utility commission? To the state attorney general’s office? You can’t be denied electricity for being on the registry.

        • #25063 Reply

          Tim L

          I think the man’s scenario was rhetorical. During harsh WI winters Aliant Energy is forbidden from withholding service due to non payment.

        • #25048 Reply
          Robin Vander Wall
          Robin Vander Wall

          Never heard of that happening before. What state are you in? Have you reported this to the state’s utility commission? To the state attorney general’s office? You can’t be denied electricity for being on the registry.

      • #25023 Reply

        Steward Steckley

        It is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to use Facebook. The punishment was handed down by the judge. It is not up to society to decide to punish you further. For example, a bakery cannot ban a same-sex couple from buying a wedding cake because it is discriminatory. I know that convicted felons are not “protected citizens”, however, what needs to be understood is that punishment theoretically should end when incarceration and/or parole/probation ends. THAT was the punishment. In Pennsylvania, Article I, Section 1 of our state Constitution gives ALL Pennsylvanians the right to a good reputation. And, the PA Supreme Court saw fit to mention that in one of their latest opinions concerning SORNA or Megan’s Law. In my opinion, every state and the Federal Constitution should have that clause inserted. William Penn was a “criminal” himself, and I believe he added that into the provincial constitution for that reason.

        • #25036 Reply

          Tim L

          In the eyes of the British Monarchy all of the signatories of the DOI were treasonous. J. Hancock for example was a known smuggler. Some may argue that characterisation is inaccurate, you can bet Hancock did not pay the king his due(tax) from every transaction.

      • #25071 Reply



        You might want to look into this but here is what MY understanding of the Facebook situation is regarding the deletion of sex offenders;

        Back in 2009/10 -ish, the then Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, requested that social media sites such as Facebook go through all their members and delete the accounts of those who appear on the SOR. Facebook’s initial response was: “No”.
        So, Mr. Blumenthal did what he is well known for doing – threatening with lawsuits. Then Facebook caved and did as he requested. Mind you, he also got other states Attorney Generals to gang up on Facebook with him. Cuz that’s the scum bag that he is. And yes, he IS a scum bag. And now he’s our Senator.
        He’s also a very left leaning liberal Democrat. Just sayin.

        • #25078 Reply
          Robin Vander Wall
          Robin Vander Wall

          I’m familiar with the history of the ban. But now the ban has become a part of the Facebook culture. And I’m afraid we face more internal resistance than external. We should be thankful that the Google/Alphabet bunch didn’t follow the same course. Blumenthal isn’t going to be our friend on this issue. This is not a left/right issue. This is real politic for both sides. This is what sells at the ballot box. And helping sex offenders create Facebook accounts does not sell at the ballot box. It doesn’t matter how liberal or conservative you are.

          The focus needs to be on Facebook. They can change their policy. And now that Packingham is the wind behind us, Blumenthal’s threats ring hollow, because the states (and their AGs) no longer have the bluff to lay on the table. They can do nothing. Well, they can do something, but not very much. So, it’s sort of like trying to convince FB to roll the clock back to when they had the courage to say NO. Will they have that much courage now? I doubt it. They would be faced with a backlash from the public, at large….it would remain highly unpopular, even if legal. Facebook is all about looking pretty. They have dollars to account for now.

        • #25084 Reply


          There’s still a hold-out on the Internet and Social Media issue. As I understand it, these rulings only apply to those offenders who are NOT subject to supervision by the courts or the state. Those of us subject to lifetime supervision at the hands of the state have very little to go on. Although the tide has turned SOME, there are too many divergent opinions from the courts regarding the rights of supervised sex offenders to have Internet access for recreational purposes. Here is what I’ve ferreted out thus far:
           Packingham v. North Carolina (United States Supreme Court, June 19, 2017) Overturned North Carolina statute which barred sex offenders from social media and attached an authoritative First Amendment Free Speech liberty interest to Internet access.

           J.I. v. New Jersey State Parole Board (New Jersey Supreme Court, A-29 September Term 2015, #07644, decided March 21, 2017) “Arbitrarily imposed Internet restrictions that are not tethered to promoting public safety, reducing recidivism, or fostering an offender’s reintegration into society are inconsistent with the administrative regime governing CSL offenders. The complete denial of access to the Internet implicates a liberty interest….”

           In re Ramon Stevens (2d Civil No. B170328 Super. Ct. No. CR41322, Filed June 29, 2004) A convicted child molester serving a prison sentence is released on parole. A parole condition prohibits is use of computers and the Internet, although his crime did not involve a computer. We conclude this prohibition is unreasonable. Court opted more focused measures such as random, unannounced searches of his computer and the installation of monitoring software. Finally, BPT could verify Stevens’ Internet usage with a sting operation…surreptitiously inviting him to respond to government-placed Internet ads for pornography. Moreover, well-settled authority establishes that every parolee retains basic constitutional protection against arbitrary and oppressive official action. The government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” [Citations.]'” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1125.) “Because laws that attempt to regulate expression `pose a particular danger of abuse by the State,’ [citation], they are carefully scrutinized. [Citation.]” ( Berry v. City of Santa Barbara (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1083; see also Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, supra, __ U.S. __ [124 S.Ct. at p. 2791].)

           Clement v. California Dept. of Corrections, 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). This ruling attached a First Amendment free speech liberty interest to material generated from the Internet. The CA Dept. of Corrections would not allow inmates to receive any material in the mail which was generated from the Internet. The inmate sued and prevailed on First Amendment free speech grounds.

           United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002) The Court struck down a state-imposed total Internet blackout. Sofsky was convicted of possessing more than 1,000 images of child pornography in the form of both still and moving pictures. Sofsky had also used the Internet to trade in child pornography. The Court opted for the state only imposing rules that prohibited Mr. Sofsky from accessing, viewing, or possessing pornography and refused to uphold a total Internet blackout because narrowly tailored, focused rules could be implemented and enforced. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to uphold a state-imposed Internet blackout even in cases involving sex offenders convicted on child pornography charges because rules forbidding the possession and viewing of pornography can be enforced. Only in cases where the offender has a history of using the Internet as a direct instrument of physical harm or exhibits a willingness to use the Internet as a direct instrument of physical harm have total Internet blackouts without probation’s approval been upheld.

           United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) Overturned a state-imposed Internet blackout against Mr. Peterson outside of seeking employment. Court ruled condition was overly broad and bore no relationship to protecting the community from future crimes.

           United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001) Condition of supervised release which forbade Mr. White from owning a computer or accessing the Internet was remanded for a more articulate restriction as original condition was simultaneously too narrow and too vague.

           United States v. Freeman, 316 F.3d 386 (3rd Cir. 2003) The Court struck down a prohibition against Freeman owning a computer or accessing the Internet as overly broad and stated more focused restrictions could be implemented and only if Freeman refused to follow those guidelines would it be appropriate to terminate all internet access.

           Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) –The U.S. Supreme Court refused to include virtual (computer generated) child pornography in the category of unprotected free speech due to the fact that no actual child was involved in the production of the material. This case is cited to illustrate the strong First Amendment Free Speech liberty interests tied to Internet access.

           Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States v. American Civil Liberties Union (521 U.S. 844, 1997) Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 223 was ruled unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indecent speech on the Internet is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as other indecent speech. The Court was concerned that the CDA, in denying minors access to indecent speech, effectively suppressed a large amount of information that adults had a constitutional right to receive. This case is cited to illustrate the First Amendment Free Speech liberty interests tethered to Internet access.

           United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2005) Although Mr. Crume has a lengthy history of grievous sexual misconduct, the record is devoid of evidence that he has ever used his computer for anything beyond simply possessing child pornography. We are not convinced that a broad ban from such an important medium of communication, commerce, and information-gathering is necessary given the absence of evidence demonstrating more serious abuses of computers or the Internet. We are confident that the district court can impose a more narrowly-tailored restriction on Mr. Crume’s computer use through a prohibition on accessing certain categories of websites and Internet content and can sufficiently ensure his compliance with this condition through some combination of random searches and software that filters objectionable material. We affirm Mr. Crume’s conviction and his 262-month prison sentence. But we vacate special conditions of supervision two and four regarding Mr. Crume’s access to computers and the Internet and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

    • #25024 Reply

      Tim L

      F%$k FB & WM,

      As far as I can see, each of these corporations have done more to undermine our American republic than all other global corporatists combined. They are not our friends and that fact that so many value their services is beyond me. A true American ( one interested in liberty) should avoid both!

      • #25041 Reply


        But see, I can’t say F@@K facebook. As a web developer and social media manager, I need to be on facebook to make a living. I was just getting started and had a couple of clients when facebook found out who I was and disabled my account. So you see, I have a vested interest in facebook allowing us back on.

        • #25060 Reply

          Tim L

          Kendal I think you confuse “needs” and “wants”.

        • #25709 Reply


          Well, just like a carpenter “needs” a hammer, and an electrician “needs” a screwdriver, Facebook is one of the tools of my trade. So yes, a carpenter could hammer a nail in with a wrench, and an electrician could use a knife as a screwdriver, still the right tool makes all the difference.

  • #25027 Reply

    Rick Montgomery

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines bullying as “the abuse or mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger or more powerful.” The Federal and state governments and all these legislators who pile on sex offenders for their own political gain are nothing more (or less) than bullies.

    • #26187 Reply


      I am in my mid 70s, an age when many of us tend to be critical of the younger generation. But my position is different. I believe I owe the younger generation an apology for what my generation has created. In 1966, I was a college senior trying to determine my career objective. During spring break, I traveled to my home town to interview for a teaching position. Contingent upon my graduation, I was eventually offered a job in spite of the fact I had no experience, my degree was not in education, and, perhaps more importantly, I was not subject to a back ground check! Try doing that today. So you see, young people today face many more obstacles in the world my generation has created in the name of safety. Allow me to close with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

  • #25021 Reply


    People make mistakes. They serve their time. All labeled sex offenders are not rapists. Laws on sex offenders should be revised. God forgives. Why keep people from being productive? This is worst than stray animals. People needs 2nd chances. Wake up law makers.

  • #25037 Reply


    You know we all do stupid things, and we all make mistakes as emma said. Here’s one I did and yes I went back to court for it. During my second polygraph test I mentioned to the tester that I was on facebook. While that raised an eyebrow to him so he quickly tells my probation officer. Well I did not lie but the thing about it and the reason I went on facebook was to sign up to campaign for Trump as I mentioned to my PO. See I wanted to sign up to be in the telephone room to campaign and get voters to vote for president Trump. Yes, he said I lied to him which didn’t appear right just because I signed up to campaign for President Trump.
    Now folks weather you like the President that’s besides the point. There is a reason for all season’s and it seems that the Supreme Courts are finely seeing the light so to speak. During court my lawyer didn’t want me to speak up but I did and ask for a second chance. Now my PO is I’m sure like a lot of others. Sure they want to play the bad guy but remember they are servants of the court and directed by the courts. Now we are into the Supreme Authority and I’m sure we all know who the Supreme Authority is. Court systems are not perfect and this article shed’s more light on the subject matter.

  • #25040 Reply

    Larry Evans

    I beleive the courts are realizing what has been taking place ever since the Registry was started only the courts were lied too along the way as they increased their punitive laws on this group of people. now all these states have gone out of their way to violate our constitutional rights, and even these small cities with their Ordiences but untill recently there were no challenges to them you see while they thought they had the moral upper hand now they are scared of being sued.Since the courts and the federal Government have made us a class of persons all to ourselves its time we really need to come together and keep the pressure on where ever we can to bring this to light. (1) there has not been one child saved by this registration, they tell the same lie over and over, but when it comes down they cant muster one true example to back up their claim that the public has been protected. thats why finally they are loosing their minds the Constitution protects every citizen including the group labled( Sex-offender) so everyone has their own horor story, each of us has many voices, ours,families, wives, friends ( the true ones) relatives its long over due time scream about discrimination . come together with one voice. thank you to all those differant groups who have been fighting for change we cant thank you enough.

    • #25080 Reply


      Bring that fighting spirit to Tennessee. We can’t even find a lawyer in this state that will give us the time of day. Nobody wants to go on record as an advocate for sexual offenders.

      • #25304 Reply


        I wonder how much help can be found through the ACLU? (I suspect this would depend upon the issue.) I wonder if there are other organizations within your state that engage in defense of citizens based on what is right versus what fear dictates? Are there elected officials sympathetic to the cause? Finally, check with the public defenders office. I have heard some public defenders (starting with the main office in your state, ours is located in the capitol city) are advocating fewer restrictions and a more logical approach.

    • #25300 Reply


      I finished post incarceration supervision recently. Prior to completion I discussed with my PO the registry and its obvious shortcomings, I have lost count how many times we had this discussion. This PO says to me, “I have an offender on my supervision list that just re-offended,” (I suppose he thought this an argument in defense of the registry). My response? “Presumably this offender was on restrictions and presumably this offender is registered and yet he re-offended.” Again I lose count how many times I heard this PO say, “Well if the registry saves just one child it is worth it.” The registry does not / has not saved one.

  • #25064 Reply


    Larry you brought up a good point. I can understand your view as well as Robin’s. Hey I’m guilty of a potty mouth and that’s a no, no I suppose. Sure these enforcement people that do these things, they seem to go to an adult site to enforce instead of a teenage site. Now that would make a lot more sense. In most of these things they are trying to break down your will and get you to come down their. Its like giving an opportunity to do wrong or tempting one in all this.
    Sure I’d like to go to church but I have to have a chaperone and sure I made a choice and wanted to back out. See free will and choices are two different things to me it seems. I know we are suppose to obey ordinances but some of this free speech thing is a getting out of hand. Sure I told my PO its all about being honest and conducting oneself in a right way.
    I often wonder about those enticing e-mails from those people that want to say lets get together, or want to hook up and all that nonsense. I wouldn’t put it past law enforcement to try tricks like that. I think me and Brian discussed that on here. Someone should check that out plus this sex torsion thing. also.

  • #25070 Reply


    Regarding Facebook Twitter, etc. There is an article here discussing President Trumps blocking someone from his Twitter account. The decision says he cannot block someone from his Twitter account. This, as I understand, opens the door for registered citizens to argue against Facebook blocking registered citizens. If I misunderstand the article please let me know.

    Article: “Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President”

    • #25145 Reply

      angel c

      You know whats so amazing, when it comes to paying taxes. It doesn’t matter if your a register sex offender, your money is taken. Then your a citizen. Bunch of hypocrites!

      • #25159 Reply


        EXACTLY!!! We HAVE to pay taxes (job, property, etc) but yet we’re limited to living our lives.

  • #25072 Reply


    … also, when will we have a right to vote. I hope voting rights are addressed in the near future. Voting is NOT the worst thing a person can do, including registered citizens. Integration into society post incarceration should include fundamental 1st amendment rights and voting. A debt paid is sufficient to offer second chances.

    • #25077 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall

      I believe the right to vote should be absolute and fundamental. I believe that the right to vote should be vested at birth by virtue of citizenship and that the right should never be taken away once maturity is reached (age of voting). The right to vote should be as fundamental as the right to breathe air.

      • #25098 Reply

        Tim L

        No right to vote+ over zealous felonizing + Database= maintaining political power. NOW we know why the first NSA database was built in Utah. The right is taking dead aim at left through sexuality.

    • #25079 Reply


      Our voting rights won’t be restored. The states do NOT want us to have a voice in voting. If we have the vote, we can vote against those who keep piling on harsher and harsher restrictions.

      • #25132 Reply


        This points out a unconstitutional conflict of interest by the government.

        • #25185 Reply

          Tim L

          I agree the people do not see voting as a free speech issue in itself? Voting is a declaration of who you support for leadership! It is essentially both yea and nay simultaneously, go figure.

    • #25090 Reply


      So far, my rights to vote and to serve on a jury are restored. The right to own a gun is still up in the air, but I don’t really want a gun anyway.

      I can’t find it right now, but I saw a really good website that had all the states, and what rights were restored when. Most states did restore the right to vote, and sit on a jury, the right to own a gun was the one that was iffy.

      • #25167 Reply


        We can’t vote here in FL with a felony conviction. Among other civil rights denied as well. Florida has one of the most punitive disenfranchisement policies in the country, permanently barring all citizens with felony convictions from voting unless they individually apply to the state Office of Executive Clemency for rights restoration ( which can take years) and it’s not guaranteed either.

        This is a pretty good article to read if you want to know what’s going on in FL right now with the subject.

      • #25160 Reply


        I’m still on probation until September 2018 and I have voted AND been called to jury duty (didn’t get selected but still had to go sit there for 8 hours waiting).

        • #25802 Reply


          I’ve been called to Jury Duty a couple of times, and it is always amazing to me how fast I get out of it when I tell them I used to work in a Public Defender’s office and know, that if we are in trial, the defendant is innocent, or else they would have pleaded to something much smaller long before they got to trial.

      • #25703 Reply


        This isn’t the original site I looked at, but it has good information, State by State

        50-State Comparison Loss and Restoration of Civil Rights & Firearms Rights

  • #25115 Reply


    Just get rid of this draconian and unconstitutional registry and its surrounding laws already.

  • #25123 Reply

    Tony From Long Island

    Gonzo: voting rights for felons is a state by state issue. In New York, any felon can vote when their entire term is completed. In Vermont, they never lose their right to vote – even while incarcerated. . . . . . As far as I know, there are no specific “no sex offenders” laws when it comes to voting.

    • #25161 Reply


      Florida is going to be a “no sex offender right to vote state”. The Florida Supreme Court in March of this year (2017) is considering an amendment to the Florida Constitution for the restoration of convicted criminals voters rights . Guess who does not get to have their voting rights restored……Felons convicted of murder or a sexual offenses would not be eligible.

  • #25164 Reply


    Their’s a lot of good comments on this article and you know timing is everything but in the end it all comes down to the chain of command which is the President as we know it. Sure we all just have to be patient. And yes I’m glad some of you all didn’t have to go to be incarcerated.
    Was I scared when I first got wrapped up into all this, I’m sure we all were. Even those boys on these campuses were scared of this campus rape or abuse thingthat I read about on MSN. During my last bout with this polygraph thing my PO told me I was hoping that when you went to trail that you would tell your whole story but that wan’t the time or place for that encounter and my public attorney agreed with me. Sure my public attorney say’s they are playing the sin squad in a lot of this.
    One lawyer I contacted in Charlottesville, VA said to try and find a Law Collage that woudl take a type of case like this as a pro bono exercise Here is that lawyers letter: Mr. Townsend – if I didn’t have to meet a payroll twice a month, I’d be a lot more interested in what the Bible has to say about giving and receiving. The Bible is pretty clear that it is a good idea to be able to pay your employees. See 1 Timothy 5:18. And if the psychologists and other expert witnesses were working for free, that would make a huge difference as well. I am familiar generally with NARSOL and the litigation in places like Colorado and Michigan. Those cases may provide some guidance on next steps.
    I continue to be in conversation with people who might be in a position to be our model plaintiffs and to fund the litigation. I don’t know of anyone who is preparing to bring suit on this, but there is a small group of us who have been working on the criminal side of these cases and who would be willing if the funding for the litigation could be found. Alternatively, if some large firm or law school decided to take this on as a major pro bono case, that might be a way. Believe it or not funding is like 25 thousand dollars which he quoted me.

  • #25158 Reply

    George in Texas

    Currently those convicted of a sex offense in a state district court in Texas , presently on parole and do not have court mandated computer restrictions are allowed to use social media as long as any new identifiers are updated through registration process.

    This doesn’t mean that sites such as Facebook will allow you to join or stay on the site for long.

    I think that this, and other recent parole guidelines within TDCJ, are being driven by the court battles and victories in the recent past – specifically Packingham.

    It’s encouraging to see the progress here in Texas but there’s still a great deal more that needs to be done.

    • #25184 Reply

      Tim L

      You are darn tootin the Congresses are typing law so fast who can keep up? Just another case of special interests utilizing word processors at an alarming rate. All banging on keys and in effect picking winners and losers along the way. We were not ready for the info age as a nation not exactly what the founders had in mind. Maybe we should make our reps write by hand…lol!

  • #25194 Reply


    Well pretty soon all this politicians and whatnot are going to take everything away from us. Our rights, homes, families, friends probably the cloths off our backs to. And you know what that gets SO’s and felons, Wana make a wild guess, I’ll give you a hint, (NOTHING TO LOOSE)!!!!!! That’s what’s going to happen. If they keep taking and taking and taking and all of this restrictions restrictions restrictions. Sorry I’m just a little tired of this garbage and noone absolutely NOONE wants to help us.
    All I know is we all live and then we all die and in the end we meet what is called our maker weather you want to believe it or not, we were put here on this earth we may have come from a puddle of slime on a rock but we were planned we weren’t mistakenly dropped on earth I don’t care what scientists want to say but they are partially correct about the slime part which I believe but that slime was planned. All these people who want to make these restrictions and laws that bind us will be given to them 10 fold my friends, I am not religious I am spiritual and a little scientific, some day we will be free one way or the other alive or dead but we will be free!

  • #25231 Reply

    John Logan

    In so many ways just the tip of the iceberg that needs to change-But–it is so refreshing for a change to see a court Win of any kind in this corrupt screwed up system!

  • #25242 Reply

    Tim L

    While it is illegal to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

    It is not illegal to yell fire in the theater if there really is a fire.

    It comes down to intent!
    The victimites are crying “WOLF!” way too often. Their intent is self evident and self serving. The proof is in the pudding. Keep fighting!

  • #25711 Reply


    Maybe it is time to write another letter to Mr. Zuckerberg and maybe even add in the cases the WC_TN added in.

Reply To: KY: Federal judge strikes internet restrictions, online identifiers
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">